| Revision as of 12:54, 17 February 2021 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by Jdn1899 - "→what is the purpose of the section on "American exceptionalism"?: new section"← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:21, 15 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,037 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (48 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
⚫ |
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject United States History|class=C |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Colonial Empires |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics |class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|US=y }} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history |class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|US=y }} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=mid|social=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|social=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=Society|class=C}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{Controversial}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|dounreplied=yes|small=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
| Line 26: |
Line 22: |
|
| counter = 4 |
|
| counter = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2022-01-24 | end_date = 2022-05-13 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gone too far == |
|
== Gone too far == |
| Line 31: |
Line 28: |
|
The American Imperialism page has actually gone too far in one direction. Whilst this talk page was initially created to speak regarding the softness of the article regarding the topic, the entire article has been revamped in the opposite direction. Thus, it is still not a neutral article. In most other professional and encyclopedic versions of articles I have read on Misplaced Pages, historians are cited occasionally to give a point of view, but in this article it is so cluttered with negative historical views of America's foreign policy, you miss out on the actual informative things. A standard middle school textbook does a better job than the current article, which desperately needs to be fixed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:41, November 26, 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|
The American Imperialism page has actually gone too far in one direction. Whilst this talk page was initially created to speak regarding the softness of the article regarding the topic, the entire article has been revamped in the opposite direction. Thus, it is still not a neutral article. In most other professional and encyclopedic versions of articles I have read on Misplaced Pages, historians are cited occasionally to give a point of view, but in this article it is so cluttered with negative historical views of America's foreign policy, you miss out on the actual informative things. A standard middle school textbook does a better job than the current article, which desperately needs to be fixed. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:41, November 26, 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01== |
|
== China's use of 'American hegemonism' == |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_320-01_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2022-08-23 | end_date = 2022-12-09 }} |
|
|
|
|
I know from memory that a few decades ago China used to refer to (and condemn) 'American hegemonism', and perhaps it still does. It might be useful to mention this in the section that discusses American hegemony, if anybody can find reliable sources to support it. ] (]) 07:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
caught my eye -- particularly the restored wording which, at a glance, appears to be editorial POV. I don't have time right not to look closely at this, but I see that this has undergone changes recently -- the furthest I have looked back is the substantially different wording back in version as of a couple of weeks ago. The requires a subscription for access. I'll try to find time to look more closely at this later if nobody else has fixed it by the time I get back to it. Please discuss below as needed. Thanks. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 21:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I happened to look back at this, and I notice that I began it with a bad link. I don't recall making the edit but, AFAICT, the initial link should go to version of the article. I see that this was changed in the next edit with edit having an edit summary saying "conforming to source." ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 18:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Characterization of Thomas Jefferson in the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
caught my eye. I don't have an issue with the edit but, as often happens, it got me thinking about the surrounding content. In this case, quoting from the article: |
|
|
{{box|], in the 1790s, awaited the fall of the ] "until our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece"}} |
|
|
which is supported there by two cited sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
This, in an article on the topic of ''American Imperialism'', seems to me to characterize Jefferson as an imperialist -- perhaps as a warmongering imperialist. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a historian and, even if I were, my thoughts about whether or not Jefferson was an imperialist would be ] -- a cite of a verifiable and reliable source unambiguously supporting such a characterization would be required. The two supporting sources cited might be taken as doing that. If they are, though, ] says that other viewpoints supported by similarly solid sources should also be presented. |
|
|
|
|
|
One source which I came across in googling abut this is {{cite book|title=The National Magazine; A Monthly Journal of American History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1986AQAAIAAJ|year=1887|page=}} Quoting from that source: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{box|Spain was early and long jealous of English extension into the southwest, and, though she reluctantly agreed, in the treaty of 1783, to the latitude of thirty-one on the Mississippi as the dividing line between the United States and herself, she sought to make void the treaty by still claiming up to thirty-two degrees and twenty-eight minutes. Our ardent pioneers pressed so vigorously into this disputed "Natchez country," that Jefferson was moved, in 1786, to words of caution: |
|
|
{{quote|We should take care not to for the interest of that great continent to press too soon upon the Spaniards. Those countries cannot be in better hands. My fear is that they are too feeble to hold them '''until our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece'''*}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* 'AM. State Papers,' Boston Ed., Vol V., 94-}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The emphasis there is mine -- intended to highlight the words requoted in the article to cast Jefferson as an imperialist. Again, I'm not a historian, but it seems to me that this other source from which I've quoted above does not characteriza Jefferson as an imperialist -- quite the contrary, rather. |
|
|
|
|
|
The question of whether or not Jefferson can properly be characterized as an imperialist would be, I think, too small a point in regard to the topic of this article to introduce a dispute about that here -- perhaps an article about Jefferson himself might be a fit place for that. Here, though, it seems to me that this other source introduces sufficient doubt about that to make it improper to characterize Jefferson as an imperialist here. |
|
|
|
|
|
I therefore propose that this bit be removed from the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion? ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 16:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}}I've tweaked the article re Jefferson . I'm no historian; better informaed editors may want to take a second look at this. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong title == |
|
|
|
|
|
I search "British Empire", I do not get redirected to "British Imperialism." |
|
|
|
|
|
I search "American Empire", I get redirected to "American Imperialism". |
|
|
|
|
|
This manifests an absurd bias, and should be changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== is nayirah-al-sabah an example of American Imperialism? == |
|
:The U.S. never had a formal empire, but has acted in imperialistic ways. --] (]) 13:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you feel a change is needed, that could be discussed at ] or the redirect could be listed at ]. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as the American empire and never had been. This page is an absurdity. You can't say "it acted imperialistically" and then jump to the conclusion "it WAS imperial!" ] (]) 03:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
yes no, and does it receive enough attention (WP:UNDUE ig) to have a mention in this article? ] (]) 05:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Page name change == |
|
== Expansion of timeline == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The timeline currently goes only up to the USA in Korea and Vietnam. Needs a massive edit to add everything after that, such as: |
|
The term "imperialism" is given it's own new definition at the start of this page. It is not imperialism in the traditional sense. Therefore I think a more appropriate name is needed. Clearly we are talking about an incidious form of cultural influence permeating from the nation of the USA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq War, Afghanistan, Operation Condor, Grenada, Indonesia and US support of the coup there (Jakarta Method) among many others. ] (]) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
I suggest a better name would be: |
|
|
American globalisation |
|
|
or Global influence of the USA ] (]) 03:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01== |
|
:So, you want to change the name of the article because the text doesn't reflect it properly? That's a reason to edit the text, not to change the name to something else which the Text also doesn't adequately reflect.<small>] (]) 05:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_Fullerton/Gender_and_Technoculture_320-01_(Fall_2023) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-08 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)</span> |
|
I am not suggesting an alternative to the text, I am suggesting an alternative title based on that text. |
|
|
For example if you needed to describe an orange in an article but titled the article "apple" would you change the title to orange or edit the entire article to fit the title? ] (]) 01:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:When an article strays off course somewhat, the solution isn't to double down on it and just change the article's topic and title with it. "Imperialism" and "imperialist" occur 99 times in the article, and are discussed in depth. Perhaps if you mentioned and related to apples 99 times while discussing an orange, your article should indeed be titled "apple". ] (]) 23:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 1800s American expansion through artistic expression == |
|
== what is the purpose of the section on "American exceptionalism"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that adding a section on how public opinion manifested itself in artistic expression with relation to American expansion would be beneficial in exploring responses and gauging the consensus at the time concerning American pursuits for territory. Looking into how C19th art was used to rally support and criticize US expansion will help conceptualize such a multifaceted period of time ] (]) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
There seem to be no direct links to the topic of this article, which is imperialism. Also, the notion of exceptionalism was throughout U.S. history used to justify both imperialism and opposition to imperialism. It is also a very short and incoherent section. Could this be deleted? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
The American Imperialism page has actually gone too far in one direction. Whilst this talk page was initially created to speak regarding the softness of the article regarding the topic, the entire article has been revamped in the opposite direction. Thus, it is still not a neutral article. In most other professional and encyclopedic versions of articles I have read on Misplaced Pages, historians are cited occasionally to give a point of view, but in this article it is so cluttered with negative historical views of America's foreign policy, you miss out on the actual informative things. A standard middle school textbook does a better job than the current article, which desperately needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.66.150 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 26, 2016 (UTC)
The timeline currently goes only up to the USA in Korea and Vietnam. Needs a massive edit to add everything after that, such as:
Iraq War, Afghanistan, Operation Condor, Grenada, Indonesia and US support of the coup there (Jakarta Method) among many others. Genabab (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that adding a section on how public opinion manifested itself in artistic expression with relation to American expansion would be beneficial in exploring responses and gauging the consensus at the time concerning American pursuits for territory. Looking into how C19th art was used to rally support and criticize US expansion will help conceptualize such a multifaceted period of time Maisiesucks (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joconnor589 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Melissaoai.